resident minister in London, and afterwards as secretary of state, that, as the treaty of 1783 was one of independence and partition of sovereign rights, it was permanent in its character, and that the fishing rights therein secured could no more be annulled by war than our independence.

The British government would not accept this contention, but signified its willingness to enter upon negotiations with a view to some settlement. Mr. Richard Rush was our minister to England, and with him in the negotiations was joined Albert Gallatin, at the time minister in Paris, a man of much political wisdom, and possessed of the full confidence of the administration. The result of their negotiations was the treaty of 1818, the first article of which fixed the American rights as to fishing in British-American waters. It was a material retrenchment of the privileges contained in the treaty of 1783. It gave Americans the right to fish in certain specified territorial waters off the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland, and to dry and cure their catch on certain of these coasts; but they renounced their former privileges as to all the other waters and coasts of Canada. They were, however, granted the privilege to resort to those waters for four purposes, to wit, shelter, repairs, wood, and water.1

When this treaty was made the British government reserved the commerce and trade of its colonies exclusively for its own vessels, and the four privileges just enumerated were in the nature of a special concession

1 For official correspondence, 4 For. Rel. 348-407.

to fishing vessels. But in 1830, and subsequently, by means of concurrent legislation and executive proclamations, the former condition of trade was changed, and the ports of the British colonies and of the United States were opened to the free commerce of vessels of both nations. Thereupon the New England fishermen claimed they were entitled to the same rights for their vessels in Canadian ports as were granted to other American vessels, such as the right to purchase supplies and bait, to land and transship cargoes and ship crews. The government of the United States has maintained this contention for many years, but it has been persistently refused by the Canadian and British governments.

The question was held in abeyance during the operation of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, again during the operation of the fishery clauses of the treaty of 1871, and it was sought to be settled by the Bayard-Chamberlain treaty of 1888, which was rejected by the Senate.

The treaty for the purchase of Louisiana left undefined the western boundary with Mexico and the eastern boundary with Florida, and both were soon a matter of dispute. That treaty presents the anomaly of transferring from one sovereignty to another a territory of immense extent without any pretense of setting forth its boundaries. When pressed by the American commissioners to perfect the treaty in this respect, Napoleon's answer was that he could only transfer what he had received from Spain, and in its terms, and he therefore directed that there should be textually embodied in the treaty the description contained in the

cession from Spain, which is as follows: "His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part to cede to the French Republic... the colony or the province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states." When Napoleon's attention was called to the obscurity in the article on limits, and the inconvenience which might arise from it, he replied: "If an obscurity did not already exist, it would perhaps be good policy to put one there."1

The eastern boundary with Florida could not be accurately delineated from the terms of the cession just quoted, but it was manifest to President Jefferson that the acquisition of that Spanish possession was a natural consequence of that of Louisiana, and that it was useless to waste time in negotiations about the boundary when it would become a necessity to us to have the whole province. We have seen that he sought to carry out this idea by dispatching Monroe to Madrid in 1804, soon after the signing of the treaty of purchase of Louisiana. During the negotiations in Paris, Napoleon had promised to exert his good offices with the Spanish government to that end, but he took no further interest in the matter, and nothing came of Monroe's effort. The object was, however, kept constantly in view during both the Jefferson and Madison administrations, and was especially pressed in the latter term, in connection with the American claims growing out of the European wars.

1 Marbois's Louisiana, 286.

When Monroe became President, renewed interest attached to the subject, both because of his intimate diplomatic acquaintance with it, and of the constant trouble and irritation occasioned by the inefficient rule of Spain over the territory. The Indians who inhabited it were a constant source of annoyance on account of their predatory excursions across the border, and it became necessary to keep a considerable portion of the American army in the vicinity to protect life and property. Added to this was the occupation of certain places in Spanish territory by bands of adventurers or freebooters, who used them as a base of operations for smuggling slaves into the United States and for violating the customs laws. These lawless acts became so flagrant, and in the face of them Spanish authority was so apparently helpless, that the government of the United States determined to take the matter into its own hands. A naval force was dispatched to Amelia Island, on the east coast of Florida, the freebooters were expelled, and the island temporarily held by the naval force.1

About the same time General Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans, was assigned to the command of the army on the Florida frontier. His instructions were to put a stop to the Indian raids, and to that end he was authorized, if necessary in hot pursuit, to follow them across the boundary line, but he was not to interfere with any Spanish occupation or posts. With his accustomed impetuosity he soon attacked the Indians, who, according to their custom, took refuge in Spanish

1 4.For. Rel. 183-202.

territory, but were closely followed by Jackson, who scattered them in the swamps and destroyed their villages. Not content with this, he marched upon the adjoining Spanish post of St. Marks, seized and occupied it; and thence proceeded with his army to the principal Spanish post of Pensacola, which he took against the protest of the Spanish commandant, who sailed away with his garrison to Havana. These acts, in violation of his instructions, Jackson justified on the ground that the seized post had been used by the Indians as bases of supplies and operations, with the countenance of the Spanish authorities.

But his aggressive measures were not confined to the Spaniards. During his military operations he had captured two prominent British subjects, Ambrister and Arbuthnot, who, it was alleged, had aided and encouraged the Indians in their incursions into American territory. They were tried by a drumhead court-martial, and upon evidence which would have made their conviction before a civil court very uncertain, they were condemned to death, and, although one of them was recommended to clemency, Jackson caused them both to be promptly executed.

The general was hailed by the people en route to his home in Tennessee as a great hero and patriot, but we can well understand the consternation and perplexity with which the news was received in Washington. The President had been pushing as much as possible the negotiations for the peaceable acquisition of Florida, nd he saw at once that unless Jackson's acts were omptly disavowed, the negotiations would not only